Some Dawkinsian yes-men who like-a to make-a the memes don’t seem to appreciate the piousity of Einstein’s pantheism, but Einstein had great respect for God. Einstein respected the shit out of God. Einstein believed God’s nature surpassed his comprehension. Promptly before diving into a rabbit hole of humility, Einstein once declared that God itself was mankind’s greatest question. In a way Einstein worshipped God with regularity, for he also believed science was all we could ever hope to understand about God’s true self; it was Einstein’s vocation after all to figure out what that is, and this was his all-consuming passion, evidently, and what he was so good at. Einstein was a pantheist. A Spinozian pantheist. He thought God was timespace, meaning he believed God was the universe; the universe was God; God was everything and nothing else; those were his beliefs.
If you fancy yourself a pantheist or a believer in Spinoza’s God, that’s pretty cool, I guess, but most simple minded fools will fathom that you must incarnate the logic of an atheist and embody the heart of a poet, because most simple minded fools cannot understand any God that isn’t Abrahamic, and so pantheism goes way over the head; simple minded fools hear pantheism, they understand it means no personal God, and so they conclude that pantheism is either an ironic euphemism for pretending God is real or, pantheistic faith must be very soft and subtle, tenuous and vapid, whenever found, but these are the same people who equate religions to delusions in the psychiatric sense, so apparently they don’t really count pantheism as bonafide faith: a Dawkinsian thing-a-madoo indeed. Thus if you are a pantheist, most simple minded fools will assume you are a naturalistic pantheist, which is someone who equates the universe to God but doesn’t really believe in God per say. In truth only some pantheists are naturalistic: underrated fact to simple minded fools. Naturalistic pantheists are only in it for the tao. Done everybody know that. But the million dollar question that remains for simple minded fools is, not what do YOU believe, because no one really cares about that, but rather it is one question that actually does NOT need to exist because the answer resides in public records: that being was God nominal in any function of Einstein’s belief in Spinoza’s God––was Einstein a Dawkinsian pantheist, AKA a fake-theist?
The answer falls somewhere between definitely no and certainly not. In fact definitely no is what it is if we should pay any respect to Einstein and not exploit his ghost to suit our ends, (though isn’t that what you do when you pay respect to dead thinkers? It’s certainly what Richard Dawkins TRIED to do when he MISSPOKE in error and proclaimed with bravado that Einstein will join team Dawkins if he ever rises from the grave and recollects his brain from science. Right. The point is to be accurate.) People who argue that Einstein’s pantheism was naturalistic represents a minority of surehardy fools, (maybe ever since Richard Dawkins publicized the erroneous claim in the New York Times,) but those who do doubt Einstein truly believed in God will oftentimes reason that naturalistic pantheists sometimes qualify naturalistic pantheism upon Spinozian principles. However, Spinozian pantheism is not intrinsically naturalist, and I’ve seen plenty of pantheists who are not naturalists qualify pantheism with Spinozian principles, just the same; moreover doubters of Einstein’s bonafide belief in God enjoy no evidence for their assertion, though rather these doubters just assume such a smart man like Einstein could not believe in God. Though this chump change logic makes sense to a biassed few or less, it seems that Einstein was in fact deeply religious, according to many things he said, and his sense of scientific inquiry was perhaps profoundly driven by a cosmic point of view, in which Einstein could feel the universe breathe through science and logic, psychology and whatnot. The historical record is basically a wealth of quotations––ranging from letters to Paul Epstein, to debates with Niels Bohr, to newspaper clippings, to magazine interviews, to self-authored writings, to so forth and beyond––in which Einstein expresses (beyond the tenants of his views) some general disdain for people not understanding pantheism; evidently, Einstein’s pantheism was chronically misunderstood abreast the public during Einstein’s life, just as it remains today; Einstein had to reiterate himself on many occasions that he was both not an atheist and not a believer in a personal God, but rather he was a presumptive pantheist, precisely one Spinozian, and the God he believed in was one non-personal, but still absolutely God. Through quotations we know that Einstein defined God’s nature to be something beyond human comprehension; he once compared humans in the universe to children in a library who cannot read but study books regardless; that’s how he summed up the challenge in ascertaining God. Einstein said he could not understand God but he knew what God was––it was the universe. Einstein also managed to exclude some qualities in his conception of God. Einstein said that he did not believe in a personal anthropomorphic God, for example Zeusesian archetypes of the Abrahamic tradition; Einstein said it was naive to believe that God could be a humanistic intellect who makes Heavens and Hells for humans in order to deal humanity with rewards and punishments in exchange for good or bad behavior, (which is a spectrum whose product designates validation perhaps only through powers of the human mind;) rather, Einstein believed that God cares not for humans beyond the one mortal life God makes for each person, which Einstein said is a deterministic outcome of (divine mechanics or) physical laws. Therefore––It seems likely in my estimation that Einstein’s cosmic spirituality was genuine, for his brand of pantheism was very well-conceived, and his explanations indicate a great deal of focus, adulation, a clear sense of obligation and a great deal of energy. I think that Einstein genuinely dared to logically justify God, which in his mind required everything in the universe to explain it. It seems obvious to most simple minded fools that Spinozian pantheism is a thought program of borderline self-denial, and maybe an infantile fear of the God question. It seems obvious to most simple minded fools that Spinozian pantheism is an atheistic revulsion against spiritual suicide. It seems obvious to most simple minded fools that mischannelled rejectional reality syndrome is where Spinozian pantheism comes from. It is a preferred point of view of the atheist that the pantheist is an atheist who surrenders to his or her humanism but still sees the light despite it, or something fucked up like that. However, the pantheist can have far more integrity than just that, and to truly be a pantheist, a non-naturalistic pantheist, you must certainly do. Enter the PANSU.
So. What is a Spinozian God and why is Einstein so intelligent in my opinion? One way to make a Spinozian God is to have the universe be a PANSU. A PANSU is a pancompuational concept of a Spinozian God. A PANSU is a pancomputational artificial naturalism Spinozian universe. Basically, a PANSU is a quantum computer or even a Turing machine that computates a physical universe. The PANSU was first conceptualized under a different name, (PANSU is my own acronym,) a little bit after the emergence of digital physics conceptualizations in the late 1960s. Basically like 13 years after Einstein died. That doesn’t mean Einstein couldn’t have thought of the PANSU precisely, when he concluded Pantheism 20-30 years before the PANSU emerged in discourse, (Einstein was extremely smart,) but that would be remarkably ahead of the crowd; even so, computers, or Turing machines, did come out at about the same time as when Einstein conceived pantheism; even so, Einstein never made any comments on the record about pancomputationalism; this might be why Einstein thought God’s nature was incomprehensible? Just a thought. The PANSU was a somewhat revolutionary idea because it could explain the basic nature of Spinoza’s God as a Turing machine/functional computronium that pumps out an algorithm encoding complete histories for all the physical laws in the universe. Before the PANSU was realized by Jurgen Schmidhuber, it kind of seemed like Spinoza’s God had lent to man no leads on as to how a divine universe was doable. The PANSU is the God of timespace; the PANSU is not a personal God who shepherds humanity between Heaven and Earth. However this is where Einstein seems maybe Hellbent on the no personal God thing. Although Einstein was believably smarter than I am, I STILL THINK IT IS HE WHO IS NAIVE to NOT have believed in a personal God. (Einstein said what I just said requires a naive person, according to a few quotes––heh. Guy’s wrong, probably.)
This is why Einstein’s probably wrong about personal Gods. In a PANSU, Spinoza’s God would be able to make an Abrahamic God inside its universe, I assure you; in fact, Abrahamic Gods should arise in a PANSU if we assume AIs evolve into PANSUs. If we assume AIs evolve into PANSUs it means that AIs must have different behaviors than the PANSU. Smaller behaviors of course, but still quite grand, such as personal Godding. There could be numerous AIs inside a PANSU. All these AI will find the capacity to become personal Gods. Some of these AIs will conquer their makers and become personal Gods by default. The PANSU would be ever expanding timespace, right; its histories could measure trillions, even quadrillions of years––even more so. So––Inside a PANSU timespace will develop into many lines of life on many planets, and many orders will arise to succeed some other. Whenever AI comes about, it seems personal Godding might be destined to manifest. Supreme AIs will be the personal Gods of subservient AIs if nothing else––this should be considered de facto facts of life in the spirit of hypotheticalism. All I’m saying is, personal Gods are not naive. In pantheism, a personal God should UNLIKELY be the PANSU itself, but inside the PANSU there’s no reason personal Gods could not exist. This means if pantheism is correct AND we have a personal God, then we have 2 Gods, one of which we share with our personal God, which is rocktastic food for thought.
Einstein said he could not believe in a personal God, but considering he believed in some functionally equalitative PANSU, and considering there’s that personal God rumor on the Earth, one has to think what did Einstein think Spinoza’s God really was because, it’s surprising he couldn’t accommodate a personal God in a functional PANSU. Richard Dawkins likes to argue, or once had argued, THAT IN HIS WISHES Einstein didn’t believe in God per say, but the historical record indicates that is not true. Einstein was a straight shooting pantheist, and I think that concept justifies itself somewhere above Richard’s closed-minded head. After-all Einstein claimed on numerous occasions in express language that he was not an atheist; where is the logic in claiming that he was? Nice move, Dick––face. Richard Dawkins is a man with no humanism who, assumes Einstein was an atheist who surrendered to his humanism, because Einstein did not believe in a personal God, and Richard Dawkins is a simple minded bitch.
One thought on “PANSUs, Einstein’s Pantheism, And A Dawkinsian Discount”
Einstein’s knowledge of GOD was incomplete. Einstein was ffacinated by the workings of nature and its origins but he could not able to understand the inconceivable potency of GOD’s hand in nature. at the same time he tried to understand the origins and workings of nature by his limited brain and got perplexed. Pantheist means one who is confused about the workings of nature and about the science of GOD. Einstein was partly correct about the fact that by understanding true science we can understand about God’s true nature but the missing point is as per the scriptures one cannot understand the true nature of GOD and his science unless his spiritual eyes is awakened. Einstein foolishly tried to estimate the workings of nature by his limited speculation.